At least, I'll gladly -- and honestly -- admit to being an unabashed Apple supporter in an Apple forum.
On the other hand, you?
Do tell us (I am assuming you'll be honest)....
If you are mistaken about something and someone else hasn't already made you aware of it I'll normally do so if I know differently (or think I do). Doesn't matter if it's related to Apple or Google, or both or neither. Obviously those with incorrect facts about Apple are quickly corrected by many others here and there's little need to do so myself. When it's Apple or Google related, as it very often is, those who know better and take the time to mention it (or research it) are fewer.
When I'm mistaken I don't mind admitting as much when presented with facts to the contrary. It's the adult thing to do. I've admitted to being wrong here a few times, and have always extended my appreciation to the one(s) letting me know. I don't really understand why others here would not feel the same way.
If it is FACT, then I'd like to see evidence of that. (I read Google News regularly, particularly the tech section, and I do not at all recall seeing it in their headlines).
Also, in that case, I'd be happy to take back my support for DED in this article.
You'll just have to take my word for it -- I have no reason to lie about something like this; I have better things to do with my time. There's is no way to go back and show exactly what was posted on Google News at a specific date and time (that I know of). I tried to go use the Wayback Machine, but that was of no use.
When the story was first posted, the WSJ piece (the originator of the story) was the top-billed source for this particular news item (Google shadiness and the FTC). Sites like Mashable, The Verge, Engadget, and The Guardian were clustered right under as their stories came online (these stories were all posted three to four days ago). The headlines for those articles on Thursday evening/Friday morning:
Engaget -- "FTC report reveals how Google manipulated its search results"
The Verge -- "Google reportedly blackmailed websites into giving it content for free"
Mashable -- "Google's FTC report raises question: What happened to 'Don't be evil'?"
The Guardian -- "Google 'illegally took content from Amazon, Yelp, TripAdvisor,' report finds"
As the day progressed (Friday), the main story was still at top of the page or at least in the top 4 headlines in the Technology section. The source that got top billing for the story also fluctuated throughout the day and into the weekend.
I'd say there's evidence of them manipulating results that is ongoing. If you Google for:
"the app store"
in quotes, which means you are searching for that exact phrase, Google's Play Store is high up in the results. If you check the Play Store page, that phrase doesn't appear anywhere. The Chrome Store is high up too. Microsoft's store and Amazon's appear but further down. If you search for "angry birds", look at whose results come up first. Search for "email", up comes GMail.
If you search for "the app store" in Bing, the Play Store is nowhere to be seen but the Microsoft Store is high up. This is an anticompetitive business practise.
It's not easy to avoid, they all want to promote their own services and they know their own ranking algorithms, which they don't let other people know.
The FTC found they weren't stifling competition, which is reasonable as their competition is doing well but they're still using unfair business practises to give themselves a better standing in the markets they compete in and without that advantage their competitors would be doing even better.
Two wrongs does not make a right
Just because one competitor does it does not justify a corrupt practice. If that were the case the Barry Bonds would have been justified in Taking Steroids to keep up with the rest of baseball! Then again Business Ethics is a oxymoron
If you use the same reasoning with Apple's numbers then it would mean the App Store had around $34B in revenues for 2014. Apple's press release said that 2014 app revenues had increased 50%. Apple didn't give a specific revenue number for 2014 but if you look at their financials I don't see where that $34B would be buried. But we do know that for 2013 Apple said their total App Store revenue was approx. $10B. A 50% increase for last year would then be $15B or thereabouts and not $34B, right?
So do you now have the same doubt about Apple's claim to have paid out $10B to developers last year when presented with the evidence? If I've made some error in my figures please point it out. Otherwise how do you explain the apparent enigma?
Why are you avoiding the issue regarding Google's accounting and the fact it's impossible to reconcile $7 billion paid to developers against their own financial statements?
However, in looking over my numbers I appear to have made a mistake. Depending on how they do their accounting, they might not record TOTAL App revenues - they may only be recording the 70% portion they take. So on $23 billion total sales, Google would get to keep 70% or about $16 billion. Can you show me where Google "hid" $16 billion on their financial statements?
If you apply the same procedure to Apple, then they made 70% of $33 billion, or around $23 billion. Apple does break out some numbers and for 2014 iTunes was around the $20 billion mark. So with Apple they have numbers on their financial reports which are at least in the same ballpark. With Google they're not even in the same universe.
You may be but I'm not deflecting at all. How do you reconcile Apple's announced numbers? Extrapolating from their official statements they only saw around $15B in total AppStore revenue for last year but claim to have paid developers 60% of that or $10B? Whatever explanation you can come up with for that apply to Google as well and see if it makes more sense to you. It will.
If you use the same reasoning with Apple's numbers then it would mean the App Store had around $34B in revenues for 2014. Apple's press release said that 2014 app revenues had increased 50%. Apple didn't give a specific revenue number for 2014 but if you look at their financials I don't see where that $34B would be buried. But we do know that for 2013 Apple said their total App Store revenue was approx. $10B. A 50% increase for last year would then be $15B or thereabouts and not $34B, right?
So do you now have the same doubt about Apple's claim to have paid out $10B to developers last year when presented with the evidence? If I've made some error in my figures please point it out. Otherwise how do you explain the apparent enigma?
2014 total sales for the Apple App Store was around $14.3B. Where do you get $34B? 70% -> devs = $10B, 30% to Apple = $4.3B.
That's completely in line with a 50% increase over $10B in 2013 revenue since we're rounding quite a bit and they say "over X". $15B revenues = $10.5B payout to devs and $4.5B revenues for Apple.
2014 total sales for the Apple App Store was around $14.3B. Where do you get $34B? 70% -> devs = $10B, 30% to Apple = $4.3B.
That's completely in line with a 50% increase over $10B in 2013 revenue since we're rounding quite a bit and they say "over X". $15B revenues = $10.5B payout to devs and $4.5B revenues for Apple.
I get the same numbers as you, around $15B. It's Eric who seems to believe it was $34B. He's got things backwards in doing his Google figures which is why I told him to apply the same reasoning to Apple's. Eventually he'll catch on where he went wrong. It's an obvious mistake.
Why are you avoiding the issue regarding Google's accounting and the fact it's impossible to reconcile $7 billion paid to developers against their own financial statements?
However, in looking over my numbers I appear to have made a mistake. Depending on how they do their accounting, they might not record TOTAL App revenues - they may only be recording the 70% portion they take. So on $23 billion total sales, Google would get to keep 70% or about $16 billion. Can you show me where Google "hid" $16 billion on their financial statements?
If you apply the same procedure to Apple, then they made 70% of $33 billion, or around $23 billion. Apple does break out some numbers and for 2014 iTunes was around the $20 billion mark. So with Apple they have numbers on their financial reports which are at least in the same ballpark. With Google they're not even in the same universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
2014 total sales for the Apple App Store was around $14.3B. Where do you get $34B? 70% -> devs = $10B, 30% to Apple = $4.3B.
That's completely in line with a 50% increase over $10B in 2013 revenue since we're rounding quite a bit and they say "over X". $15B revenues = $10.5B payout to devs and $4.5B revenues for Apple.
I got my numbers backwards as well. Funny that GG didn't catch my mistake - must not really be paying much attention. He used my original formula (which I did wrong) and went from there without even checking my math.
For Google to have paid out $7 billion in 2014 they needed App revenues of $10 billion. As you pointed out, for Apple to have paid out $10 billion they needed revenues of $14.3 billion. iTunes/App Store was around $20 billion for 2014, so it's entirely plausible that Apple had $14.3 revenues from the App Store section alone.
I still say Google's number is highly suspect since that represents a full 15% of their yearly revenue. Surely worthy of being broken out from the "other" category.
Dan Lyons shows the difficulty of earning a living when you're not much good at anything but basic writing. The only real option is to be a shill.
Yes, Lyons wrote the piece before the "leak"... in anticipation of the release.
"[Google's] long-term plan is to become an artificial-intelligence company" or anything other than search, because the search patents are soon expiring along with the company's main revenue stream.
"[Google] even hired renowed AI guru Ray Kurzweil" who is over the hill and is used just to help recruit young, naive employees.
... the search patents are soon expiring along with the company's main revenue stream
No they aren't. Only the original PageRank patent is expiring anytime soon and anyone can license that one anyway. There's also a Pagerank V2 and Pagerank V3 somewhat recently assigned to Stanford by Mr. Page. Those won't expire for a long time. http://www.seobythesea.com/2012/03/new-pagerank-same-as-old-pagerank/
Another DED (read dead) article... TLDR. I read through the first portion and thought when is this article going to end? Apparently he doesn't value his readers enough to write a concise article. It's also the same old tune - Google and Lyons bash - and its on old news to boot.
Definitely got linked baited this time. I'm usually pretty good at identifying DED's articles by the title. Can't wait till he no longer posts for AI.
So Daniel writes a completely bogus article and his credibility further circles the drain.
I wonder if a formal apology will be forthcoming....
You can believe what you like after evaluating the article and Lyons' response.
Note that while he denies a lot, the fact remains that his article was fluff, was written years after the FTC revealed much of its investigation (if not the latest, and most detailed issues) and did in fact push down all relevant, real news on the subject with lightweight garbage, full of inconsistencies and downright lies.
If you'd prefer to believe what you want, then great news: Google is customizing your news feed to pipe you exactly what you want to see, confirming your world view. And also providing lots of notoriety for not just Dan Lyons, but also Russia Today and other extremist propaganda sources, blending the line between fact and horseshit, not to mention advertising.
Dan Lyons didn't address any of the actual content of the article, or any of his shilling of Google Glass (which he made a very prominent part of his fluff piece) or his disparaging of Apple Watch (which he still hasn't even used. Apple doesn't invite him to events). So I guess we'll have to wait and see whether he's as wrong about that as he was about Linux (which he railed against in the service of SCO), about iPods, iPhones and the iPad he hated so much, not to mention his contempt for Steve Jobs, whose health issues Lyons gloated about in concerned tones right up until Steve died.
Let it be known that "Lord Amhran" finds Dan Lyons credible. Anyone else want to sign up on the Lyons Fan List? Gadorguy?
Final note: Lyons claimed "Levy made a stink and claimed I was lying. I produced the email that Levy had sent to the business editor of Newsweek and gave it to Howard Kurtz at CNN."
I've seen Microsoft do this too; in 2013 the News app in Windows 8 highlighted a story about how Apple and Google were mentioned in documents Snowden had leaked, yet MS wasnt mentioned in the headline and the story below was a positive one involving Ballmer.
Sadly, I'm not sure Tim Cook's stated claim about how people will be outraged when they "find out the truth" about Google is going to prove true. People just don't care anymore, or they know and just shrug; lacking the imagination to see why that's bad. I think the ones who care (like me) are already using other services.
I think it's a product of today's hyper-connected world where people can't keep their attention-span going longer than a couple minutes. Companies and governments bank on that ignorance now. Just wait.. in the next couple weeks. people will forget about it and go back to caring about what the Kardashians are doing.
Comments
When I'm mistaken I don't mind admitting as much when presented with facts to the contrary. It's the adult thing to do. I've admitted to being wrong here a few times, and have always extended my appreciation to the one(s) letting me know. I don't really understand why others here would not feel the same way.
If it is FACT, then I'd like to see evidence of that. (I read Google News regularly, particularly the tech section, and I do not at all recall seeing it in their headlines).
Also, in that case, I'd be happy to take back my support for DED in this article.
You'll just have to take my word for it -- I have no reason to lie about something like this; I have better things to do with my time. There's is no way to go back and show exactly what was posted on Google News at a specific date and time (that I know of). I tried to go use the Wayback Machine, but that was of no use.
When the story was first posted, the WSJ piece (the originator of the story) was the top-billed source for this particular news item (Google shadiness and the FTC). Sites like Mashable, The Verge, Engadget, and The Guardian were clustered right under as their stories came online (these stories were all posted three to four days ago). The headlines for those articles on Thursday evening/Friday morning:
Engaget -- "FTC report reveals how Google manipulated its search results"
The Verge -- "Google reportedly blackmailed websites into giving it content for free"
Mashable -- "Google's FTC report raises question: What happened to 'Don't be evil'?"
The Guardian -- "Google 'illegally took content from Amazon, Yelp, TripAdvisor,' report finds"
As the day progressed (Friday), the main story was still at top of the page or at least in the top 4 headlines in the Technology section. The source that got top billing for the story also fluctuated throughout the day and into the weekend.
To Google and
ALL
Googlers!
:smokey:
I'd say there's evidence of them manipulating results that is ongoing. If you Google for:
"the app store"
in quotes, which means you are searching for that exact phrase, Google's Play Store is high up in the results. If you check the Play Store page, that phrase doesn't appear anywhere. The Chrome Store is high up too. Microsoft's store and Amazon's appear but further down. If you search for "angry birds", look at whose results come up first. Search for "email", up comes GMail.
If you search for "the app store" in Bing, the Play Store is nowhere to be seen but the Microsoft Store is high up. This is an anticompetitive business practise.
http://www.cnet.com/news/google-causes-real-harm-to-consumers-and-to-innovation-ftc-says/
http://www.fairsearch.org/google-playbook-open-dominate-close/
It's not easy to avoid, they all want to promote their own services and they know their own ranking algorithms, which they don't let other people know.
The FTC found they weren't stifling competition, which is reasonable as their competition is doing well but they're still using unfair business practises to give themselves a better standing in the markets they compete in and without that advantage their competitors would be doing even better.
Two wrongs does not make a right
Just because one competitor does it does not justify a corrupt practice. If that were the case the Barry Bonds would have been justified in Taking Steroids to keep up with the rest of baseball! Then again Business Ethics is a oxymoron
If you use the same reasoning with Apple's numbers then it would mean the App Store had around $34B in revenues for 2014. Apple's press release said that 2014 app revenues had increased 50%. Apple didn't give a specific revenue number for 2014 but if you look at their financials I don't see where that $34B would be buried. But we do know that for 2013 Apple said their total App Store revenue was approx. $10B. A 50% increase for last year would then be $15B or thereabouts and not $34B, right?
So do you now have the same doubt about Apple's claim to have paid out $10B to developers last year when presented with the evidence? If I've made some error in my figures please point it out. Otherwise how do you explain the apparent enigma?
2013 press release: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2014/01/07App-Store-Sales-Top-10-Billion-in-2013.html
2014's announcement: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2015/01/08App-Store-Rings-in-2015-with-New-Records.html
Always trying to deflect, aren't we?
Why are you avoiding the issue regarding Google's accounting and the fact it's impossible to reconcile $7 billion paid to developers against their own financial statements?
However, in looking over my numbers I appear to have made a mistake. Depending on how they do their accounting, they might not record TOTAL App revenues - they may only be recording the 70% portion they take. So on $23 billion total sales, Google would get to keep 70% or about $16 billion. Can you show me where Google "hid" $16 billion on their financial statements?
If you apply the same procedure to Apple, then they made 70% of $33 billion, or around $23 billion. Apple does break out some numbers and for 2014 iTunes was around the $20 billion mark. So with Apple they have numbers on their financial reports which are at least in the same ballpark. With Google they're not even in the same universe.
Dan Lyons has been caught lying so many times that he has no credibility. Nothing he says is worth listening to.
Why is AI publishing his response here? **** him. Make him publish it on his own site.
What is AI afraid of?
If you use the same reasoning with Apple's numbers then it would mean the App Store had around $34B in revenues for 2014. Apple's press release said that 2014 app revenues had increased 50%. Apple didn't give a specific revenue number for 2014 but if you look at their financials I don't see where that $34B would be buried. But we do know that for 2013 Apple said their total App Store revenue was approx. $10B. A 50% increase for last year would then be $15B or thereabouts and not $34B, right?
So do you now have the same doubt about Apple's claim to have paid out $10B to developers last year when presented with the evidence? If I've made some error in my figures please point it out. Otherwise how do you explain the apparent enigma?
2013 press release: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2014/01/07App-Store-Sales-Top-10-Billion-in-2013.html
2014's announcement: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2015/01/08App-Store-Rings-in-2015-with-New-Records.html
2014 total sales for the Apple App Store was around $14.3B. Where do you get $34B? 70% -> devs = $10B, 30% to Apple = $4.3B.
That's completely in line with a 50% increase over $10B in 2013 revenue since we're rounding quite a bit and they say "over X". $15B revenues = $10.5B payout to devs and $4.5B revenues for Apple.
I get the same numbers as you, around $15B. It's Eric who seems to believe it was $34B. He's got things backwards in doing his Google figures which is why I told him to apply the same reasoning to Apple's. Eventually he'll catch on where he went wrong. It's an obvious mistake.
Always trying to deflect, aren't we?
Why are you avoiding the issue regarding Google's accounting and the fact it's impossible to reconcile $7 billion paid to developers against their own financial statements?
However, in looking over my numbers I appear to have made a mistake. Depending on how they do their accounting, they might not record TOTAL App revenues - they may only be recording the 70% portion they take. So on $23 billion total sales, Google would get to keep 70% or about $16 billion. Can you show me where Google "hid" $16 billion on their financial statements?
If you apply the same procedure to Apple, then they made 70% of $33 billion, or around $23 billion. Apple does break out some numbers and for 2014 iTunes was around the $20 billion mark. So with Apple they have numbers on their financial reports which are at least in the same ballpark. With Google they're not even in the same universe.
2014 total sales for the Apple App Store was around $14.3B. Where do you get $34B? 70% -> devs = $10B, 30% to Apple = $4.3B.
That's completely in line with a 50% increase over $10B in 2013 revenue since we're rounding quite a bit and they say "over X". $15B revenues = $10.5B payout to devs and $4.5B revenues for Apple.
I got my numbers backwards as well. Funny that GG didn't catch my mistake - must not really be paying much attention. He used my original formula (which I did wrong) and went from there without even checking my math.
For Google to have paid out $7 billion in 2014 they needed App revenues of $10 billion. As you pointed out, for Apple to have paid out $10 billion they needed revenues of $14.3 billion. iTunes/App Store was around $20 billion for 2014, so it's entirely plausible that Apple had $14.3 revenues from the App Store section alone.
I still say Google's number is highly suspect since that represents a full 15% of their yearly revenue. Surely worthy of being broken out from the "other" category.
Got to give AI credit for being forthright with their Google bashing since Google ads probably accounts for 90% of their revenue.
Dan Lyons shows the difficulty of earning a living when you're not much good at anything but basic writing. The only real option is to be a shill.
Yes, Lyons wrote the piece before the "leak"... in anticipation of the release.
"[Google's] long-term plan is to become an artificial-intelligence company" or anything other than search, because the search patents are soon expiring along with the company's main revenue stream.
"[Google] even hired renowed AI guru Ray Kurzweil" who is over the hill and is used just to help recruit young, naive employees.
Considering blackberry phone owner Eric Schmidt claims android has %80 market share,
A measly 3 Billion is not much.
No they aren't. Only the original PageRank patent is expiring anytime soon and anyone can license that one anyway. There's also a Pagerank V2 and Pagerank V3 somewhat recently assigned to Stanford by Mr. Page. Those won't expire for a long time.
http://www.seobythesea.com/2012/03/new-pagerank-same-as-old-pagerank/
Thee's also indications that Google has moved beyond Pagerank anyway.
http://www.seobythesea.com/2014/12/replacement-pagerank/
Definitely got linked baited this time. I'm usually pretty good at identifying DED's articles by the title. Can't wait till he no longer posts for AI.
I wonder if a formal apology will be forthcoming....
So Daniel writes a completely bogus article and his credibility further circles the drain.
I wonder if a formal apology will be forthcoming....
You can believe what you like after evaluating the article and Lyons' response.
Note that while he denies a lot, the fact remains that his article was fluff, was written years after the FTC revealed much of its investigation (if not the latest, and most detailed issues) and did in fact push down all relevant, real news on the subject with lightweight garbage, full of inconsistencies and downright lies.
If you'd prefer to believe what you want, then great news: Google is customizing your news feed to pipe you exactly what you want to see, confirming your world view. And also providing lots of notoriety for not just Dan Lyons, but also Russia Today and other extremist propaganda sources, blending the line between fact and horseshit, not to mention advertising.
Dan Lyons didn't address any of the actual content of the article, or any of his shilling of Google Glass (which he made a very prominent part of his fluff piece) or his disparaging of Apple Watch (which he still hasn't even used. Apple doesn't invite him to events). So I guess we'll have to wait and see whether he's as wrong about that as he was about Linux (which he railed against in the service of SCO), about iPods, iPhones and the iPad he hated so much, not to mention his contempt for Steve Jobs, whose health issues Lyons gloated about in concerned tones right up until Steve died.
Let it be known that "Lord Amhran" finds Dan Lyons credible. Anyone else want to sign up on the Lyons Fan List? Gadorguy?
Final note: Lyons claimed "Levy made a stink and claimed I was lying. I produced the email that Levy had sent to the business editor of Newsweek and gave it to Howard Kurtz at CNN."
That's not the story Howard Kurtz at CNN reported: "Daniel Lyons apologizes for Apple interference claim"
Lyons has an appropriate last name.
You should save that for a slower news day.
You may be—
Lovely hot chocolate, this.